When was I saved? Should I get re-baptized?

[evangelist6589]

Reading a 350 page book on evangelism I have noted that when I accepted Christ at age 5 I did not exactly submit to his Lordship nor did I fully understand sin. I re-dedicated my life to Christ at age 17 and have progressed in my faith and walk with Christ in time and this is called Progressive Sanctification. The author of this 350 page book on evangelism would have referred to me as a False Convert, however authors of other books (even some by Reformed) do not agree. I am not exactly sure if it was age 5 when I got saved, age 17, or later, but I know the doctrine of Perseverance of the saints and the following verses.

Perseverance of the saints-God works in those who are truly saved to preserve them in His salvation.)
(a) John 10:28 (b) Philippians 1:6 (c) II Timothy 1:12

(KJV) Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

I was confused in my Weslyian background. I was also baptized at age 13-14 in that denomination which I believe holds to the essentials of the faith. However there are others that believe the Weslyian/Anabaptist Missionary Church denomination is not teaching the true gospel and I need to get baptized again, but I am convicted I should not do this. Perhaps no one knows for certain when I was saved, but if at age 5 I would be one exception to the sinners prayer.

 

[Winman]

but if at age 5 I would be one exception to the sinners prayer.

You are exceptional all right.

What do you mean by your former church teaching a false gospel, what did they teach you have to do to be saved?

 

[InTheLight]

How do you know for certain that you are one of the elect?

 

[evangelist6589]

You are exceptional all right.

What do you mean by your former church teaching a false gospel, what did they teach you have to do to be saved?

Perhaps I did not communicate properly. I find no evidence that they taught another gospel. Very Weslyian indeed, but according to this website I find no basis for a charge that they teach another gospel. They basically taught the Romans Road leading to the sinners prayer. Unfortunately lots of the youth I knew said the prayer but today do not attend church, nor walk with the Lord and is because the church did not preach on SIN as heavily as they should have and they seemed to teach salvation could be lost which is a false doctrine that even you deny. I remember as a youth they told me that I could sin so bad God would turn his back on me and reject me.

http://www.mcusa.org/AboutMC/WhoWeAre/Beliefs.aspx

Beliefs
Scripture is our authority. The Missionary Church
is committed to this basic statement of faith.

GOD.
There is but one eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere-present Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit— who is the creator and sustainer of all things (Deuteronomy 6:4-5; 1 Timothy 2:5).

JESUS CHRIST.
He is God incarnate, yet human. He lived a sinless life, died to make atonement for the sins of all mankind, was bodily resurrected and is now mediator at the right hand of the Father. He is assuredly coming in power and glory for His believing followers, and is the only Savior of men (John 1:1, 14; Titus 2:11-14).

HOLY SPIRIT.
He convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, regenerating all who repent of their sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He sanctifies, empowers, teaches, guides and comforts the believers (John 16:7,8, 12-15).

BIBLE.
The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and thus authoritative in all matters it addresses (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

SALVATION.
Salvation is the result of genuine repentance of sin and faith in the atoning work of Christ. It brings forgiveness to the penitent, makes him a partaker of the divine nature and gives peace with God. We call this new birth (Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3-5).

CHURCH.
We believe in the invisible and universal Church as an organism. It is composed of all believers in the Lord Jesus who have been vitally united by faith to Christ, its living Head and sovereign Lord (Matthew 16:18; Hebrews 12:22-24).

ORDINANCES.
We believe the Christian ordinances are two: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We believe they are outward rites appointed by Christ to be administered in each church, not as a means of salvation, but as a visible sign and seal of its reality (Acts 8:36; 1 Corinthians 11:24-34).

 

[Winman]

You are too hung up on this Arminian thing. Many Calvinists freely admit they were saved in an Arminian church. But I don't hear too many Arminians say they were saved in a Reformed church.

Just because someone does not come to church in their teens does not mean they were not saved. Folks go out in the world. Some never come back, but many do. I got saved when I was 10 or so years old. My family wasn't religious at all and we moved, and I didn't go to church. In fact I didn't go back to church until I was married in my twenties. But I was saved the whole time. I believed in Jesus and I told people I believed in Jesus. My friends when I was a teen knew I was a Christian, even if I didn't go to church.

You look too much on the outward, what you believe is on the inside. Many folks that you might not think believe in Jesus really do.

 

[evangelist6589]

You are too hung up on this Arminian thing. Many Calvinists freely admit they were saved in an Arminian church. But I don't hear too many Arminians say they were saved in a Reformed church.

Just because someone does not come to church in their teens does not mean they were not saved. Folks go out in the world. Some never come back, but many do. I got saved when I was 10 or so years old. My family wasn't religious at all and we moved, and I didn't go to church. In fact I didn't go back to church until I was married in my twenties. But I was saved the whole time. I believed in Jesus and I told people I believed in Jesus. My friends when I was a teen knew I was a Christian, even if I didn't go to church.

You look too much on the outward, what you believe is on the inside. Many folks that you might not think believe in Jesus really do.

And that is the one danger of the views advocated in this 350 page book on evangelism I am reading. The author has fully convinced me in many other areas, however what he says may not be fully biblical and other books I have by others (even some Reformed) do not agree on his assumptions on who is and who is not saved. We do not fully know who is and who is not saved. My Grandpa Bob I believe was not, but he may have been. He did pray the prayer years ago, but did not appear to live for the Lord. I pray I am mistaken and he was saved before he died.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

You are too hung up on this Arminian thing. Many Calvinists freely admit they were saved in an Arminian church. But I don't hear too many Arminians say they were saved in a Reformed church.

Just because someone does not come to church in their teens does not mean they were not saved. Folks go out in the world. Some never come back, but many do. I got saved when I was 10 or so years old. My family wasn't religious at all and we moved, and I didn't go to church. In fact I didn't go back to church until I was married in my twenties. But I was saved the whole time. I believed in Jesus and I told people I believed in Jesus. My friends when I was a teen knew I was a Christian, even if I didn't go to church.

You look too much on the outward, what you believe is on the inside. Many folks that you might not think believe in Jesus really do.

I wasn't saved in an Arminian church but it leaned that way. What you say is true, but how many truly reformed baptist church's are there around? In my area the only reformed church is Presbyterian.

 

[JonC]

Reading a 350 page book on evangelism I have noted that when I accepted Christ at age 5 I did not exactly submit to his Lordship nor did I fully understand sin. I re-dedicated my life to Christ at age 17 and have progressed in my faith and walk with Christ in time and this is called Progressive Sanctification. The author of this 350 page book on evangelism would have referred to me as a False Convert, however authors of other books (even some by Reformed) do not agree. I am not exactly sure if it was age 5 when I got saved, age 17, or later, but I know the doctrine of Perseverance of the saints and the following verses.

Perseverance of the saints-God works in those who are truly saved to preserve them in His salvation.)
(a) John 10:28 (b) Philippians 1:6 (c) II Timothy 1:12

(KJV) Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

I was confused in my Weslyian background. I was also baptized at age 13-14 in that denomination which I believe holds to the essentials of the faith. However there are others that believe the Weslyian/Anabaptist Missionary Church denomination is not teaching the true gospel and I need to get baptized again, but I am convicted I should not do this. Perhaps no one knows for certain when I was saved, but if at age 5 I would be one exception to the sinners prayer.

I had similar questions twenty years ago. I was saved around 10, but as I grew and developed I realized that I didn’t understand many aspects and implications of salvation. But I realized that I did understand the gospel. Regardless of your theological persuasion - the actual gospel of Christ is exactly the same. I believed as a child, and was saved as a child. But throughout my years I continued and continue to grow spiritually. Sometimes I think that we feel to be saved we need a full and comprehensive understanding of doctrines which are impossible for us to understand prior to salvation. To quote Spurgeon, what we need to do is to "come and drink."

I guess the question is whether or not you truly believed. If the “sinners prayer” summarizes your salvation experience (as was its original intent), then I’d say you were saved at that young age. If you thought reciting the words saved you, then perhaps not. If you conclude that you were never baptized as a believer, then perhaps this is something that you may need to accomplish. You are the only one that can answer that question, and I will pray that God guides and directs you in this reflection.

 

[Winman]

I wasn't saved in an Arminian church but it leaned that way. What you say is true, but how many truly reformed baptist church's are there around? In my area the only reformed church is Presbyterian.

You are probably correct, there simply aren't that many Reformed churches around. But that brings up the question WHY?? Why are there many Arminian churches (and I mean Baptist) but very few Reformed?

Now, if you asked me, I would say that Baptists have rejected the Reformed view, they no longer believe it scriptural. Evidence of that is this;

http://sbctoday.com/2012/05/30/an-i...st-understanding-of-god’s-plan-of-salvation”/

There were several hundred signers to this document I believe. The majority of Baptists reject Calvinism today. And that is not because they do not know scripture. It is scripture that convinces them the Reformed view is error.

Calvinism has surged in the last few years because Calvinists have taken advantage of the internet especially to further their doctrine, but now we are seeing a backlash against it. This SBC document is evidence of that.

 

[agedman]

You are probably correct, there simply aren't that many Reformed churches around. But that brings up the question WHY?? Why are there many Arminian churches (and I mean Baptist) but very few Reformed?

Now, if you asked me, I would say that Baptists have rejected the Reformed view, they no longer believe it scriptural. Evidence of that is this;

http://sbctoday.com/2012/05/30/an-i...st-understanding-of-god’s-plan-of-salvation”/

There were several hundred signers to this document I believe. The majority of Baptists reject Calvinism today. And that is not because they do not know scripture. It is scripture that convinces them the Reformed view is error.

Calvinism has surged in the last few years because Calvinists have taken advantage of the internet especially to further their doctrine, but now we are seeing a backlash against it. This SBC document is evidence of that.

Winman,

You are ignoring that the SBC was founded upon Calvinist holding folks. These founding fathers would hold the link as absolute foolishness.

There was a time, the SBC used the following covenant as a general accepted view of their thinking (during the 60's and 70's). Note how the typical SB pew sitter would be uncomfortable in the modern Baptist church with this document.

Having been led, as we believe by the Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and, on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now, in the presence of God, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ.

We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this church, in knowledge, holiness, and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality and to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines; to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the gospel through all nations.

We also engage to maintain family and secret devotions; to religiously educate our children; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings, faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale of, and use of, intoxicating drinks as a beverage; to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior.

We further engage to watch over one another in brotherly love; to remember one another in prayer; to aid one another in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and Christian courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay.

We moreover engage that when we remove from this place we will, as soon as possible, unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God's Word.

(printed in the back of the responsive reading pages of every "Baptist Hymnal" before the revisions of the mid 70's)

​

Sad the typical modern Baptist has no concept of this statement and no concept of WHY it was so important.

BTW, the whole Arminian/Cal business wasn't even addressed in this statement, and shows that most of the folks really didn't care even back then.

The issue is merely an attempt by both sides in some sort of power play over money, land, and possessions.

Really stupid.

One reason I had to leave them long, long ago.

 

[JonC]

Winman,

You are ignoring that the SBC was founded upon Calvinist holding folks. These founding fathers would hold the link as absolute foolishness.

There was a time, the SBC used the following covenant as a general accepted view of their thinking (during the 60's and 70's). Note how the typical SB pew sitter would be uncomfortable in the modern Baptist church with this document.

Having been led, as we believe by the Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and, on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now, in the presence of God, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ.
...
​

Sad the typical modern Baptist has no concept of this statement and no concept of WHY it was so important.

BTW, the whole Arminian/Cal business wasn't even addressed in this statement, and shows that most of the folks really didn't care even back then.

The issue is merely an attempt by both sides in some sort of power play over money, land, and possessions.

Really stupid.

One reason I had to leave them long, long ago.

You can find many SBC local churches still using this today.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

You are ignoring that the SBC was founded upon Calvinist holding folks. These founding fathers would hold the link as absolute foolishness.

That makes no difference to me. Before the Reformation everybody was a Roman Catholic. Was their doctrine correct?

There was a time, the SBC used the following covenant as a general accepted view of their thinking (during the 60's and 70's). Note how the typical SB pew sitter would be uncomfortable in the modern Baptist church with this document.

Having been led, as we believe by the Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and, on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now, in the presence of God, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ.​

We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this church, in knowledge, holiness, and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality and to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines; to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the gospel through all nations.​

We also engage to maintain family and secret devotions; to religiously educate our children; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings, faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale of, and use of, intoxicating drinks as a beverage; to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior.​

We further engage to watch over one another in brotherly love; to remember one another in prayer; to aid one another in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and Christian courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay.​

We moreover engage that when we remove from this place we will, as soon as possible, unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God's Word.​

(printed in the back of the responsive reading pages of every "Baptist Hymnal" before the revisions of the mid 70's)​

I doubt any Baptist would have trouble with that statement. That is not the issue, the issue is Calvinism.

Sad the typical modern Baptist has no concept of this statement and no concept of WHY it was so important.

Again, I doubt that statement would give any Baptist a problem. That is not the issue. Calvinism is the issue.

BTW, the whole Arminian/Cal business wasn't even addressed in this statement, and shows that most of the folks really didn't care even back then.

Calvinism was not an issue 30 years ago, it was almost unheard of among Baptists. I know, I was there.

The issue is merely an attempt by both sides in some sort of power play over money, land, and possessions.

Really stupid.

Or the issue is scriptural doctrine, which is not stupid whatsoever.

One reason I had to leave them long, long ago.

Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out I say.

 

[JonC]

Calvinism was not an issue 30 years ago, it was almost unheard of among Baptists. I know, I was there.

If you're speaking of SBC, then you're probably going a bit too far (although I don't doubt that to be your experience). I don’t think that Calvinism was unheard of among Southern Baptists 30 years ago. I was there also, but young. I remember election being somewhat of an issue. It certainly was an issue in the SBC’s early stages (when the SBC was decidedly and moderately Calvinistic). Examine the criticisms of R.B.C. Howell against the “hyper” Calvinists of his time and his criticisms of the Arminianism of Baptists that were leaning towards the soteriology of the Methodists.

 

[Winman]

If you're speaking of SBC, then you're probably going a bit too far (although I don't doubt that to be your experience). I don’t think that Calvinism was unheard of among Southern Baptists 30 years ago. I was there also, but young. I remember election being somewhat of an issue. It certainly was an issue in the SBC’s early stages (when the SBC was decidedly and moderately Calvinistic). Examine the criticisms of R.B.C. Howell against the “hyper” Calvinists of his time and his criticisms of the Arminianism of Baptists that were leaning towards the soteriology of the Methodists.

Oh, I had heard of Calvinism back then, but it wasn't an issue. I didn't even know what Calvinism was about back then it was such a minor issue. Back then the Charismatics were the big issue.

 

[Aaron]

Reading a 350 page book on evangelism I have noted that when I accepted Christ at age 5 I did not exactly submit to his Lordship nor did I fully understand sin. I re-dedicated my life to Christ at age 17 and have progressed in my faith and walk with Christ in time and this is called Progressive Sanctification. The author of this 350 page book on evangelism would have referred to me as a False Convert, however authors of other books (even some by Reformed) do not agree. I am not exactly sure if it was age 5 when I got saved, age 17, or later, but I know the doctrine of Perseverance of the saints and the following verses.

Perseverance of the saints-God works in those who are truly saved to preserve them in His salvation.)
(a) John 10:28 (b) Philippians 1:6 (c) II Timothy 1:12

(KJV) Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

I was confused in my Weslyian background. I was also baptized at age 13-14 in that denomination which I believe holds to the essentials of the faith. However there are others that believe the Weslyian/Anabaptist Missionary Church denomination is not teaching the true gospel and I need to get baptized again, but I am convicted I should not do this. Perhaps no one knows for certain when I was saved, but if at age 5 I would be one exception to the sinners prayer.

Did you believe in Christ when you were first baptized? Was the doctrine preached orthodox (IOW, Deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith alone)? If yes on both, then another baptism shouldn't be considered.

 

[JonC]

Oh, I had heard of Calvinism back then, but it wasn't an issue. I didn't even know what Calvinism was about back then it was such a minor issue. Back then the Charismatics were the big issue.

The main thing I got out of church discussions 30 years ago was that if you play “Another One Bites the Dust” backwards and you get “it’s fun to smoke marijuana.” It was more of a war against culture (often unfounded) than civil war amongst brethren. Now that I think about it, in a way I’d prefer discussion, exploration and even disagreement among believers regarding doctrine than some of the “teachings” that were going on back then. But you are right that Calvinistic doctrine was not something that we divided over.

 

[JonC]

Did you believe in Christ when you were first baptized? Was the doctrine preached orthodox (IOW, Deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith alone)? If yes on both, then another baptism shouldn't be considered.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[padredurand]

Wouldn't this be a question to ask your pastor?

 

[evangelist6589]

I had similar questions twenty years ago. I was saved around 10, but as I grew and developed I realized that I didn’t understand many aspects and implications of salvation. But I realized that I did understand the gospel. Regardless of your theological persuasion - the actual gospel of Christ is exactly the same. I believed as a child, and was saved as a child. But throughout my years I continued and continue to grow spiritually. Sometimes I think that we feel to be saved we need a full and comprehensive understanding of doctrines which are impossible for us to understand prior to salvation. To quote Spurgeon, what we need to do is to "come and drink."

I guess the question is whether or not you truly believed. If the “sinners prayer” summarizes your salvation experience (as was its original intent), then I’d say you were saved at that young age. If you thought reciting the words saved you, then perhaps not. If you conclude that you were never baptized as a believer, then perhaps this is something that you may need to accomplish. You are the only one that can answer that question, and I will pray that God guides and directs you in this reflection.

I believed I was saved at that young age and saw things differently from that day on. I was confused theologically due to the church I attended and my young age, but I did hunger to read the word.

 

[pinoybaptist]

find the pastor who officiated your baptism or a witness to it and ask them, were they sure all of you got dunked ? you know, you were five years old, how do you know you didn't float up a li'l bit and got a finger or a toe floating outta the water and all ?
now, if that happened, y'all gotta be baptized again, cause you don't bury a corpse with a part of it stickin' out, do ya ?